Andhra Pradesh HC Declines Continuation Of Security Cover To Ex-AAG, Says Protection Was Provided For Him To Fearlessly Discharge His Duties

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a plea moved by senior advocate and former Additional Advocate General (AAG) P Sudhakara Reddy, seeking continuation of security cover, after noting that committee responsible for reviewing security had opined that there was no threat perception to the petitioner.

In doing so the high court said that security was provided at the relevant period until the petitioner's resignation from the post in June this year, to enable him to fearlessly discharge his duties as AAG. However, if there is any need to continue such security, the former AAG has to follow the procedure laid in a March 1997 order issued by the State government on the subject, it added. 

The senior advocate had approached the high court contending that during the previous political regime, he was allotted cases pertaining to 18 Departments which includes most sensitive cases involving the present Chief Minister Chandra Babu Naidu and other leaders of political parties; subsequently he was provided with security after evaluation of threat to his life. 

He claimed that the present CM's son had made some entries in a “Red Book”, openly declaring in public meetings about mentioning of some names in this book and that after coming to power, he will not leave them unpunished.  It was claimed that this information was published through media channels and the former AAG's name was present in the "Red Book" as the present CM was arrested in Skill Development Case. 

A single judge bench of Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi in its order said, “...the contention of the petitioner that he was provided with security 2 + 2 on evaluation of threat to his life, as he was appearing in those 85 cases, on facts is not tenable. On the other hand, it can safely be presumed that security was provided to him, to discharge duties fearlessly as Additional Advocate General. Any Law Officer of that category would represent the State daily in important as well sensitive cases, may be against political leaders, terrorists/extremists or Naxalites etc. Therefore, such security will be continued, till he holds the post of Additional Advocate General. If the petitioner feels that he has a threat to life from any quarters like political leaders, extremist, terrorists or Naxalites etc., even after resignation to the post of Additional Advocate General, and if there is any need to continue such security, he shall follow the procedure laid in G.O.Rt.No.655 HOME (SC.B) Department, dated 13.03.1997, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh”.

"No doubt that the petitioner was granted security all these years. But that by itself does not mean that it should continue for ever, more particularly, in the light of opinion of Security Review Committee that there was no threat perception to the petitioner," it added. 

Background

The petitioner was appointed Additional Advocate General (AAG) of Andhra Pradesh in 2019 until his resignation on June 6 this year. He was provided with 2+2 security cover from February 16, 2021 onwards.

After his resignation in June this year, the State Security Review Committee (SRC) reviewed his security cover on July 16 and decided to withdraw it. This decision was communicated to Reddy on August 3. He thereafter approached the High Court seeking continuation of security, citing potential threats due to his involvement in sensitive cases during his tenure.

Reddy, represented by senior advocate D. Prakash Reddy, argued that the security was initially provided due to threats arising from his handling of sensitive cases involving political leaders, including the current Chief Minister. He contended that these threats persisted even after his resignation. 

Opposing the plea, the State represented by Advocate General D. Srinivasa Rao, said that the security was position-based, not threat-based. It was argued that most of the sensitive cases mentioned by the petitioner were allocated to him after he was already provided security, indicating that the security was not due to case-specific threats. The State maintained that the SRC had objectively assessed the current threat perception and found no specific threat to Reddy's life.

Findings

The high court referred to its earlier judgments in G. Subas Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) and Katasani Rami Reddy vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1998) wherein it was established that threat perception is dynamic and best assessed by specialized agencies like the SRC.

The high court emphasized that it had been held in several judgments that a Writ Court does not have a necessary expertise or the knowledge to assess the 'threat' to a person.

It further noted that Reddy had not followed the proper procedure for seeking security as a private citizen after his resignation, as laid out in the 1997 Government Order Rt. No. 655 (1997); instead he directly approached the High Court. Notably this GO provides certain guidelines stating that “all other persons including statutory functionaries and visiting dignitaries can be provided security depending upon threat perception". The GO adds that this threat perception has to be decided by the State Review Committee at the unit level and at the State level.

The high court thereafter said, "In view of the judgment of this Court in the case of G.Subas Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, any application, directly made to this Court shall not be entertainable as no cause for a Mandamus by the Court shall be deemed to have been arisen if the applicant made no efforts to approach the competent authority for such security". 

Justice Chakravarthi found that the SRC's decision was not based solely on Reddy's current non-official status, but on a comprehensive assessment of potential threats. It noted that the SRC formed its opinion after considering questions including whether petitioner has any threat from an individual or a group; whether the individual or group is likely to endanger the petitioner's life; whether there is any threat to physical assault. The court said that the SRC had answered these questions in the negative and  then came to an opinion that there is no specific threat to the life of the petitioner. 

The court also held that the privileged nature of the SRC report under Section 125 of the Indian Evidence Act meant that Reddy was not entitled to see its full contents.

“Therefore, this Court in the above judgment held that the particulars in the report of Security Review Committee is a privileged information U/s.125 of Indian Evidence Act and therefore, the petitioner cannot have a look into it. In that view of the mater, communication of decision of the Security Review Committee to withdraw the security to the petitioner in the absence of any specific threat from any individual or group, without furnishing actual contents of the report, amounts to valid communication," it said. 

Thus, the petition was dismissed on the ground that the material relied upon by him did not show that the SRC's decision-making process was vitiated or that the order was passed for extraneous reasons. 

Case title: P Sudhakara Reddy v/s The State Of A.P. and Others

WRIT PETITION NO: 12881/2024

Counsel for petitioner: Senior advocate D. Prakash Reddy along with advocate Sri M. Bala Krishna

Counsel for the respondents: Advocate General D.Srinivasa Rao

Click Here To Read/Download Order